J-Lo blows
So this is why J-Lo is so popular despite putting out crappy music. Seems like the music companies were involved in payola schemes: paying radio stations to play music in order to boost ratings. Instead of playing music because it's good, radio stations were paid to play music that the music companies wanted to promote in order to increase record sales.
I'm of two minds:
1) It's creepy and deceptive, which I deplore
2) It's capitalism, which I support
Drug companies do it all the time, sending doctors on 'information' trips (junkets) to promote a new drug that combats hay fever. If that's the case, is this really so bad?
UPDATE:
So, I guess I'm linked in Slate. Cool! Auros comments that I'm sounding like I'm saying that it's ok for the music industry to do this, and I totally agree it sounds that way. Seriously, though, I don't think it's entirely copacetic that these industries are basically attempting to bribe people in order to promoting their product. However, should Sony's actions be punished? I would say this: if there is an inherent expectation of trust between the music radio stations and the public and an implied expectation of impartiality, then yes, it should be. However, it's not clear to me that music radio stations have that sort of status with the public. That said, if the DJ were to misrepresent the reason for playing the song, e.g., "I think this song is so incredible", instead of, "Sony gave me tickets to the Yankees game to play this", then I would think that only the station should be punished.
If anyone out there has a good argument one way or the other, I'd love to hear it.
Oh, and I think that Green Day blows, too.
posted by Craptacular @ 8:57 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
You were linked from Slate. Which, incidentally, did an article recently on how the drug companies use their patronage of doctors to try to pump up their prescription numbers.
It's definitely an interesting comparison, but I'm not quite sure what to make of the context -- yes, the drug companies' activities are creepier. But I definitely don't take that and say, "Gosh, this creepier thing is OK so I must be OK with the music industry's actions." Instead, it reinforces my sense that the FDA and AMA need to figure out some way to counteract or regulate the drug companies. I want my doctor making decisions based on the best information available, and that definitely doesn't mean "the best information paid advertisers can pump into his head." At the very least, there should be a public database of the largesse doctors receive from drug companies, kind of like how public disclosure of campaign contributions is a way of letting people speak, but making sure we all know who's talking.
Best regards,
Auros (auros.livejournal.com, and I'm on Slate's Fray regularly)
OK so I may be drunk but I think I actually have a good point here. If you're still reading at this point, enjoy: First all of these things are based on paying to promote your product/ Specifically, in a way that won't be obvious to the consumer. Drug companies treat Doctors so they (consciously or subconsciously) are more apt to prescribe your drug, advertisers of all kinds pay for product placement, and music companies pay so you hear a song more often, making it into a "popular" song. Now, the product placement we find mildly annoying but accept it as part of robust capitalism. The recording industry bothers us because music is something that strikes us as very personal. It is an emotional, private experience. The pharmaceutical industry though... well, it doesn't get anymore private and personal than that. This is not a matter of "creepier", this is a line we should not cross. This is a case of something so important, so essential that we agree as a society how decisions on this field are reached (the hippocratic oath) and nothing else is allowed to affect that outcome.
Post a Comment
<< Home